U.S. Soldiers now raiding U.S. gun shops

[BumpShadow]

I did.

I've said it multiple times now.

It is not necessary for me to provide a reason why a government agency should not exist

Tell me why I'm wrong.

What is in red is the meat of that post. Saying you don't have to explain yourself is not an explanation. Your not necessarily wrong, but making broad general half-thought out statements doesn't make you right either. Their are reasons these departments exist. And no its not to crush our freedoms. We are the free'est nation on earth with a working, relevant government.

Despite what Alex Jones, hollywood, or others would have you believe, you can't run a government from the shadows. It doesn't work, it's not effective enough. You can influence, buts that the same thing, and not as effective.

Don't get me wrong, there are alot of groups and individuals that would like to rule the world, or just runs things from the shadow's, but it just doesn't work

So one of you has decided that I am supporting a dictatorship and the other has decided that I am supporting bringing back the Articles of Confederation.

You guys are a trip.

Wait, so you want a small government, but not that small? So where do we draw the line. The articles of the confederation gave you just what you wanted, a small ineffective central government with all power at the local level. Why is that a "trip" to you. Thats what you want, isn't it?

 

[jeremy]

I'm entering this thread with the inherent belief that military & police duties should be separate. Really really separate. Both serve a distinct role in a free republic, but mixing them is not conducive to our sustained freedom. I don't like seeing police morphing into a paramilitary force, and I don't like seeing military take on the role of local police. I think history has shown us enough reasons to avoid these societal models.

Army CIDC has been operating in a similar Capacity for over 200 Years...

I also think that allowing the Federal Government to intervene in mundane local matters is also not conducive to keeping our free republic. Crime should be handled always by the most local jurisdiction possible. Living under innumerable Federal laws, accompanied by scores of Federal enforcers, is a signal that we are giving up the concept of Federalism and moving toward a top-down Federal dictatorship. The Union is weakened every time the Feds supersede locals on matters such as this.

Actually we would be moving closer to an Empire than a Dictatorship. The Union is weakened for more by the Voting Populace than by the Feds superseding Locals...

If the Air Force is to have a police force then I think they should not perform any duties outside the walls of their assigned base. I think most or all of the other Federal enforcement agencies are unconstitutional along with the laws they seek to enforce. Where in Article 1 Section 8 does the Constitution give the Feds the power to track down thieves? I think it the best solution for preserving a free republic is to keep the enforcement local.

My question for you is since the Air Force were the ones who started the Investigation on Post, would they not be the Local Agency?!

I'm sorry this thread got so sidetracked with my mistaken use of the word soldier and lack of attention to the intricacies of quasi-military bureaucracies such as NCIS and AFOSI. But hopefully we can agree on some of my above points and post together in peace & harmony.

See it does not kill one to have a logical discussion...

 

[rambone]

My question for you is since the Air Force were the ones who started the Investigation on Post, would they not be the Local Agency?!

Maybe if the town of Las Vegas employed their own Air Force. But you pointed out earlier that they are Federal Agents.

I think the same thing about the presence of the ATF, FBI, & ICE all jumping into the fray.

 

[steveh_131]

What is in red is the meat of that post. Saying you don't have to explain yourself is not an explanation. Your not necessarily wrong, but making broad general half-thought out statements doesn't make you right either. Their are reasons these departments exist. And no its not to crush our freedoms. We are the free'est nation on earth with a working, relevant government.

Government should be minimal. That's a fundamental belief that I hold. If you disagree, then that is material for a whole new thread and I would be happy to discuss it. If there are reasons that these agencies exist, I consider it the responsibility of their proponents to tell me why. Not the other way around.

Wait, so you want a small government, but not that small? So where do we draw the line. The articles of the confederation gave you just what you wanted, a small ineffective central government with all power at the local level. Why is that a "trip" to you. Thats what you want, isn't it?

In the context of this discussion, I am happy to frame the debate around our current constitution.

 

[jeremy]

Maybe if the town of Las Vegas employed their own Air Force. But you pointed out earlier that they are Federal Agents.

I think the same thing about the presence of the ATF, FBI, & ICE all jumping into the fray.

So what happens in your Idea of how the Country should run, if something was stolen from a Neighboring County and brought across the County Line to your County. Do the Deputies from the Original County had the Investigation off to your Counties Deputies?!

By the way I do agree that the Presence of the FBI, ATF, ICE and Everyone outside of the Air Force and the LVPD was not needed...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm entering this thread with the inherent belief that military & police duties should be separate. Really really separate. Both serve a distinct role in a free republic, but mixing them is not conducive to our sustained freedom. I don't like seeing police morphing into a paramilitary force, and I don't like seeing military take on the role of local police. I think history has shown us enough reasons to avoid these societal models.

We may be splitting hairs, here, but in the case of Air Force OSI - they are basically the "detectives" of the Security Police. They have police powers consistent with investigating crimes that originate within the Air Force structure or involve Air Force personnel. They are not "Military" in the sense that most of us would understand the term.

I also think that allowing the Federal Government to intervene in mundane local matters is also not conducive to keeping our free republic. Crime should be handled always by the most local jurisdiction possible. Living under innumerable Federal laws, accompanied by scores of Federal enforcers, is a signal that we are giving up the concept of Federalism and moving toward a top-down Federal dictatorship. The Union is weakened every time the Feds supersede locals on matters such as this.

At this point, I don't think we're sure whether or not this was the Feds intervening in "mundane local matters." Don't necessarily disagree that the Feds stick their noses into our business when they shouldn't, but the Air Force investigating the theft of some of their equipment and being present while that equipment is recovered doesn't qualify, as I see it.

If the Air Force is to have a police force then I think they should not perform any duties outside the walls of their assigned base. I think most or all of the other Federal enforcement agencies are unconstitutional along with the laws they seek to enforce. Where in Article 1 Section 8 does the Constitution give the Feds the power to track down thieves? I think it the best solution for preserving a free republic is to keep the enforcement local.

This is equivalent to saying: If a man robs a bank in Indianapolis and flees across 96th Street to Carmel, IMPD shouldn't be able to investigate or even pursue him across that jurisdictional boundary. And since the crime didn't take place in Hamilton County, the police there shouldn't be interested in it either.

I'm sorry this thread got so sidetracked with my mistaken use of the word soldier and lack of attention to the intricacies of quasi-military bureaucracies such as NCIS and AFOSI. But hopefully we can agree on some of my above points and post together in peace & harmony.

You see, that's what happens when you flout others' sensibilities; the arguments you want to make get lost in the noise.

I understand your point about federal agents being able to "track down thieves", but there are so many other intrusions into our lives by other federal entities with no constitutional purview whatsoever, that the idea of Service-connected law enforcement cooperation with local authorities to get their property back is trivial, in fact, and I'm not so certain your appeal to principle applies, either.

When you get to the point where NCIS/OSI/CID comes to arrest you for a non-federal crime, I'll start to worry about them. Until then, there are other federal law enforcement agencies which seem to regularly abuse their powers that we can concern ourselves with.

 

[CarmelHP]

This thread started with an unfounded claim: that "U.S. Soldiers" raided a gun shop. It was actually a civilian law enforcement agency, within the civilian command structure, that joined with local LE in conducting an investigation. The AF OSI is as military as FBI, they're federal special agents. The federal government has legitimate needs to investigate crimes in its jurisdictional area. I can't see any reasonable person disputing that. This raid did not violate posse comitatus as that Act did not apply to civilian employees.

I do, however, go so far as to say there should be no armed federal law enforcement agents with arrest powers (with the exception of Marshals acting under court supervision) unless acting under local authority. Prior to the 1930's, when all the other bad ideas came about, a slew of armed federal police agencies were put in place. Prior to the so-called "Kansas City Massacre" federal agents were not routinely armed except when acting in concert with local agencies and usually had to request local agency assistance to effect arrests. Allowing the federal government to maintain a large armed body of agents can have the same effect and be used for the same purpose as having a large standing army stationed among the citizenry. It's an affront to federalism and blurs the distinction of which level of government holds the general police power. Federal agents should go back to investigate bodies only rather than police agencies.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This thread started with an unfounded claim: that "U.S. Soldiers" raided a gun shop. It was actually a civilian law enforcement agency, within the civilian command structure, that joined with local LE in conducting an investigation. The AF OSI is as military as FBI, they're federal special agents. The federal government has legitimate needs to investigate crimes in its jurisdictional area. I can't see any reasonable person disputing that. This raid did not violate posse comitatus as that Act did not apply to civilian employees.

I do, however, go so far as to say there should be no armed federal law enforcement agents with arrest powers (with the exception of Marshals acting under court supervision) unless acting under local authority. Prior to the 1930's, when all the other bad ideas came about, a slew of armed federal police agencies were put in place. Prior to the so-called "Kansas City Massacre" federal agents were not routinely armed except when acting in concert with local agencies and usually had to request local agency assistance to effect arrests. Allowing the federal government to maintain a large armed body of agents can have the same effect and be used for the same purpose as having a large standing army stationed among the citizenry. It's an affront to federalism and blurs the distinction of which level of government holds the general police power. Federal agents should go back to investigate bodies only rather than police agencies.

WhEEEE! a coherent anti-federalism argument. Thank you sir!

 

[rambone]

So what happens in your Idea of how the Country should run, if something was stolen from a Neighboring County and brought across the County Line to your County. Do the Deputies from the Original County had the Investigation off to your Counties Deputies?!

I like the idea of counties partnering & collaborating on a shared jurisdictional crime spree. Or perhaps the State Police from where this occurred.

I don't think the Federal Government was meant to be much of a policing body. I like what CarmelHP is saying.

I do, however, go so far as to say there should be no armed federal law enforcement agents with arrest powers (with the exception of Marshals acting under court supervision) unless acting under local authority. Prior to the 1930's, when all the other bad ideas came about, a slew of armed federal police agencies were put in place. Prior to the so-called "Kansas City Massacre" federal agents were not routinely armed except when acting in concert with local agencies and usually had to request local agency assistance to effect arrests. Allowing the federal government to maintain a large armed body of agents can have the same effect and be used for the same purpose as having a large standing army stationed among the citizenry. It's an affront to federalism and blurs the distinction of which level of government holds the general police power. Federal agents should go back to investigate bodies only rather than police agencies.

 

[jeremy]

I like the idea of counties partnering & collaborating on a shared jurisdictional crime spree. Or perhaps the State Police from where this occurred.

I don't think the Federal Government was meant to be much of a policing body. I like what CarmelHP is saying.

I like the Idea as well so what is the Difference from the Air Force Base LEO's crossing the imaginary line to the next Jurisdiction different from the Example I gave you...

I would love to see CarmelHP's view make a come back...

 

[steveh_131]

This thread started with an unfounded claim: that "U.S. Soldiers" raided a gun shop. It was actually a civilian law enforcement agency, within the civilian command structure, that joined with local LE in conducting an investigation. The AF OSI is as military as FBI, they're federal special agents. The federal government has legitimate needs to investigate crimes in its jurisdictional area. I can't see any reasonable person disputing that. This raid did not violate posse comitatus as that Act did not apply to civilian employees.

Thanks for clearing this up. If the Air Force is not in the chain of command for this agency, then my assertions were unfounded.

I do, however, go so far as to say there should be no armed federal law enforcement agents with arrest powers (with the exception of Marshals acting under court supervision) unless acting under local authority. Prior to the 1930's, when all the other bad ideas came about, a slew of armed federal police agencies were put in place. Prior to the so-called "Kansas City Massacre" federal agents were not routinely armed except when acting in concert with local agencies and usually had to request local agency assistance to effect arrests. Allowing the federal government to maintain a large armed body of agents can have the same effect and be used for the same purpose as having a large standing army stationed among the citizenry. It's an affront to federalism and blurs the distinction of which level of government holds the general police power. Federal agents should go back to investigate bodies only rather than police agencies.

Now this I can get behind.

 

[lashicoN]

Webster wasn't a military type, so I suspect he didn't have the same perspective as most of us modern military types.

Certainly you can't rely on news media for an accurate story.

Oh, excuse me, but you aren't Webster and you don't work for the "news media", therefore you aren't able to understand anything about them and your opinions of either of them are moot.

Securing items that need some expertise in doing so. Even being able to recognize it may be difficult without some expertise. What if it was a theft of a bio weapon?

Expat, come on...a bio weapon? The local shop owner in Nevada stole a bio-weapon and LVPD SWAT/FBI/ATF aren't capable of securing it? That's what you're going with, huh? Who is this FFL? James Bond?

each agency has an area of expertise...would you want the BATFE trying to search for your kidnapped child?

No, but they have been known to massacre large groups of people in order to "investigate" alleged statutory rape. Not much difference, which is why many of us want to keep the Feds out of anything at all costs.

And CarmelHP, where were you when this thread began? You successfully said what both sides of this argument have been getting at, and got everyone to agree with you. Well done.

 

[Expat]

Expat, come on...a bio weapon? The local shop owner in Nevada stole a bio-weapon and LVPD SWAT/FBI/ATF aren't capable of securing it? That's what you're going with, huh? Who is this FFL? James Bond?

Read what I said, as they say RIF. The question posted (that I responded too) was name some time when it would be acceptable to take a military contingent along on a raid. If the property belonged to the USAF, I could see them being brought along on the raid.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Oh, excuse me, but you aren't Webster and you don't work for the "news media", therefore you aren't able to understand anything about them and your opinions of either of them are moot.

(snipped)
.

Ah, competing humor. I understand your confusion. Except about the news media. I've been around them enough to know they NEVER get the story right.

 

[lashicoN]

Ah, competing humor. I understand your confusion. Except about the news media. I've been around them enough to know they NEVER get the story right.

Confusion? If I'm confused, it's because of your disgraceful, demeaning, incorrect terminology of the profession - International Affairs Investigative Multimedia Reporters. "news media"? . If you want to keep using the wrong terms, expect to be corrected by people who know better than you. IAIMRs are on the front line, defending your First Amendment rights, so you should at least have the respect to call them by their proper title.

And by the way, until you've served with the IAIMRs and know their battle, you have no right to comment on what constitutes a "story", and you clearly have no idea how one would get these "stories" "right". You just can't know, until you've been there with them. Your ignorance isn't your fault, and just because you're ignorant to IAIMRs, doesn't necessarily mean you're stupid.

Sound familiar?

 

[glockednlocked]

Quit yur biotchin they could have called in an Airstrike. This actually looks pretty tame for the AIRFORCE

 

[Bill of Rights]

Confusion? If I'm confused, it's because of your disgraceful, demeaning, incorrect terminology of the profession - International Affairs Investigative Multimedia Reporters. "news media"? . If you want to keep using the wrong terms, expect to be corrected by people who know better than you. IAIMRs are on the front line, defending your First Amendment rights, so you should at least have the respect to call them by their proper title.

And by the way, until you've served with the IAIMRs and know their battle, you have no right to comment on what constitutes a "story", and you clearly have no idea how one would get these "stories" "right". You just can't know, until you've been there with them. Your ignorance isn't your fault, and just because you're ignorant to IAIMRs, doesn't necessarily mean you're stupid.

Sound familiar?

These "IAIMR"s to which you refer... personally, I've never heard that term. Because of that (coupled with the fact that a quick google of the term returned absolutely no results,) I'm going to presume for the sake of this discussion that you just made it up to make your point, which I see to be that IAIMRs are separate and on a different "level" than other reporters. As reporters (or Reporters), though, they are part of the media just as soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and coasties are each part of their own service, but are all part of the military. All US soldiers are US military, but not all US military are US soldiers. (and you can substitute any of the other service-specific terms in that sentence for "soldiers") This is much the same as all PD detectives are LEOs, but not all LEOs are detectives.

Hope that helps!
Blessings,
Bill

 

[steveh_131]

As reporters (or Reporters), though, they are part of the media just as soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and coasties are each part of their own service, but are all part of the military. All US soldiers are US military, but not all US military are US soldiers. (and you can substitute any of the other service-specific terms in that sentence for "soldiers") This is much the same as all PD detectives are LEOs, but not all LEOs are detectives.

Out of curiosity, what would the correct term be if you wanted to talk about a member of any branch of the military?

Many people who are not informed about these differences would use the term "soldier" for this purpose, which is not technically incorrect according to its traditional definition, but is clearly not ideal.

What would a better word be?

 

[Cwood]

Service Member
Military Personnel


Just two off the top

 

[steveh_131]

Service Member
Military Personnel

Thanks.